Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccsu3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
From: kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Another Reply to Doug Alan
Message-ID: <2015@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 30-Jun-84 14:30:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdccsu3.2015
Posted: Sat Jun 30 14:30:25 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Jul-84 00:44:21 EDT
References: <136@uf-csg.UUCP>, <2171@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1963@sdccsu3.UUCP>, <2223@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Hacker's Haven, U.C. San Diego
Lines: 144

From: ...mit-eddie!nessus (Doug Alan)

> I was responding to someone who said ...

If you respond to something, please include it in as basenotes!!!  I thought
you went off on an idle tangent to talk about your definitions of the world.
Also,

> Murder is when one person purposely denies another person his right to life.

Please keep in mind who you are talking for.  The above is your opinion, not
everyone's definition.  There is none that is everyone's.  I could argue with
that.  I won't, though, it'll just be an endless circle.  Keep in mind that any 
arguements you base solely on your own opinion are just as valid or invalid
as what the world thinks of your opinion.  And if you're trying to argue with
some of us...  At least, start out with something that we would agree with!

> Denying a fetus its right to life would be murder, even if the parents
> don't want it.  On the other hand, if a fetus is a not person, then
> killing it is not murder, even if the father wants it to be born.  The
> strongest argument that can be made in this case is perhaps that the
> father is being denied something that belongs partially to him.  But
> this isn't murder.

You are trying to argue two points as once here, both confusing.  What does
the father's opinion of the abortion have to do with the abortion being or not 
being murder?  You started out arguing that abortion may be murder and ended up
that it wasn't murder to ignore the father's opinion.  Consistent, really 
consistent.  Can I suggest you re-read your entire article throughly before
you post it?  Sometimes you can catch paragraphs like the above.

> In my opinion, what makes something a person is intelligence

This is a fresh opinion, however.  Go into it a little more, will you?  Sounds
interesting, if not scheduled for immediate acceptance by the net..

> Some people will claim that a criminal has given up his right to life by
> committing a crime and therefore killing him isn't murder.  But a fetus
> has never done anything, and therefore can't have given up its right to
> life.

There is a thing in our list of punishable crimes that is called something
like "Planned Murder"; something that allows a police officer to arrest
someone who is suspected of scheming to murder a person.  Maybe not suspected,
maybe not scheming, but along those lines -- a murder in the future.

Presently you've just talking about the fetus, what is being done to it, it's
right to life, etc.  Let's talk about the parents if/when the child arrives:

Money -- has to pay for hospital fees, child-rearing, school, food, etc.
Time -- someone has to take care of the child, do things with him/her/them, etc.
Change in status -- if it's their first kid.  They are 'Parents' now.

There are more, less suble and somewhat less drastic, but the above are enough
for my example.  What happens if the parents cannot afford one of the above?  
Cutting back on expenses, one or both of the working parent(s) cannot work
as much anymore, social pressures and obligations for the child, etc.  Not
quite death, but depending on the circumstances it could ruin a life or two.

Not quite murder, but enough of a potential damage that it should be considered.

I consider it enough cause to let the parents decide if they want to go through
all this.  How about you?

> My opinion about criminals: ...

This is net.abortion.  If you want to argue on everything you can include in 
one article go to net.flame, or send me mail.

> The woman made the decision to have sex, and knew the risks and benefits.
> The responsibilty for the fetus lies with her.

You can take this opinion, FUCK OFF, AND DIE.

When you finally have sex, maybe you'll learn it takes two to decide.  Most 
normal men won't drop their pants as soon as someone whispers "I want it" 
in their ear.

> ... but that in the eyes of the law the fate of the fetus should be left up 
> to the woman.

Let's have some consistency in your arguements!!  So what happens if the
mother decides to have the abortion?  Is that murder?  You just said above
it will be legal -- is it legal murder?

> In my opinion, it isn't murder to kill a human vegetable.  In fact,
> someone who pulls the plug on a human who has suffered brain death and
> is costing millions in life support gets my vote as doing a great favor
> to society.

In someone's else opinion, he felt he was doing the world a favor killing off
an entire race.  You two have picked different targets but have both decided 
that what you did was a favor.

> If intelligence has nothing to do with it, then is puposely and unfairly
> killing an intelligent Martian (let's assume for the moment that they
> exist) murder?  I think so.  If it's not, why not?  If it is murder,
> then why is it?

I didn't say intelligence has nothing to do with it.  I said it wasn't all
that had to do with it.  Just because something isn't intelligent as we are,
it's not our open license to kill it.  There are many, many reasons not to
kill something, and perhaps almost as many lying around to kill it.  Take all
the protected species's, for example.  It's not legal to kill the Bald Eagle.
Yet it is nowhere as intelligent as the Ok-to-kill chimpanzee.  Perhaps there
is another factor involved?

>>>-FLAMES-<<<

In another of your replies, you berated someone to stooping to personal attack.
Yet you later said, "At least I don't come from a computer call smurf!"  You
insulted his employment opportunities, called him irrational.
Practice what you preach, Dougie-poo.

You have an incredible lack of flowing logic in your arguements, you state your
opinions without *ANY* mentioning of their basis or explanations, you stick in
tangent topics into your arguements and end up arguing for both at the same
time, perhaps hoping that if we will agree to one we'll concede on the other.

You may or may not be a Freshman, but you've definetly got the mentality.

>>>-DEFLAMES-<<<

If you want to argue successfully here, Doug, you're going to have to realize
you are arguing with people.  People that have to be convinced through some
means, and I personally doubt any brute-force method with your opinions are
going to work.  Maybe it will.  But I doubt it.  Try logic.  Cool, slow,
referenced and well-explained logic.  I won't argue with it.  Not too many
people do.  We'll point out where you may have take a wrong turn here and
there and you can try again, but just saying "it is so" ain't going to do too
much.  You have argued with some logic, but not too well, and, in some cases,
completely missing what the logic was called for!

My suggestion:  Re-read your postings before posting them.  Check your logic
and thinking and try to think from a stranger's point of view.  From the good
ol' abstract "average person"'s point of view.  Not point of opinion, but
point of view.  Try to argue your topics in ways we can understand them.

Good Luck.

				   Kenn the Kenf
				...!sdcsvax!kenn
				...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192
				...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn